Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller vs. D-Link Wireless

[Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller's] software quality has been shed in recent years. The only problem I have with it is its inability to work with older Cisco Access Points. However, that's to be expected for any deployment. While the controller's UI works well, some areas could be improved. API integrations lack flexibility. [I feel] it's time for policy redesign. It can be a little difficult to determine coding quality.

Incentivized

Best in small networks & appropriate in industrial areas. AP works fine in any temperature & location (in remote locations office or remote location). Open area wireless connectivity is good with good range. Simple VLAN management and management are good. Backup and restoration is very good. Small home offices using wireless network work awesome.

Incentivized

• The GUI on the Cisco 8540 WLC is much better designed than other Cisco products. Its easy to navigate between the different settings to find what is needed.
• The AP groups allows touching multiple APs at one time.
• It also allows us to create standard SSIDs that can be used at all sites that connect back to it, this saves a lot of time instead of hitting each site with a local controller.

Incentivized

• Due to multiple switches in a single network environment, communication issues are common; therefore, productivity is effected. After installing D-Link Wireless, we resolved these kind of issues in our network.
• One windows solution make management easy via D-Link Wireless.
• Logs and troubleshooting is now easily handled. Pictorial form help in configuration and users management.

Incentivized

• Code quality is a bit hit and miss. This will be great for a while, then things will be bad for a while, then we'll do it again. The UI of the controller works, but could do with a refresh, and I would like to see some improvement on layout and organization.
• The constant code/firmware upgrades and the QA of new code could be better.
• Maybe the compatibility with old Cisco Access Points could be improved, but it's normal in all kinds of deployments.

Incentivized

• Hanging issues are common in large scale networks. Even wireless controller is hanged in peak hours.
• Issues in VLAN configuration and port configurations.
• Cost is high in front of other brands.

Incentivized

Very well made product. Very stable. We have had no issues administering the 8540.

Incentivized

It is a better product. The evolution is positive.

Incentivized

We have [done] some work before with the Cisco 3504 product, but the more recent Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller provides a wider range of capabilities for managing the wireless network and each individual device [and] also being able to handle more users. Unfortunately, we didn't test and deploy equivalent products from other concurrent companies.

We studied and selected D-Link due to usage in a limited area, and it is a very cost effective solution; therefore, D-Link Wireless AP and D-Link Wireless Controller [were] selected for our organization. We also [researched] Cisco, but Cisco was an expensive product and not appropriate in our required area or task; therefore, we selected D-Link.

Incentivized

• The Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller allows you to reduce your hardware footprint of wireless controllers deployed in your environment. Instead of having a controller per site deployed, you can have a couple of 8540 controllers in your data center that can handle up 6000 Access Points.
• Some of the savings on hardware cost is offset by the cost of redundant WAN circuits. The access points will continue to function when connectivity to the Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller is unreachable, but it will not allow any new connections in that wireless environment.

Incentivized

• Organizational needs are fulfilled [which] means return on investment.
• Smooth connectivity increases productivity. Yes, we are satisfied in this area.
• Management and troubleshooting are core features & very quick in production area.

Incentivized